Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The shock of the CNBC host is priceless....

Pitchfork rebellion led by a venture capitalist? Interesting.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fed-s ... 2020-04-09

Yep. Pension funds will magically be saved. WAFJ. That guy is so far removed from reality it’s comical.

AZGrizFan wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 4:37 pm Yep. Pension funds will magically be saved. WAFJ. That guy is so far removed from reality it’s comical.

Exactly! He’s about a billion dollars removed.

kalm wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 5:26 pm

AZGrizFan wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 4:37 pm Yep. Pension funds will magically be saved. WAFJ. That guy is so far removed from reality it’s comical.

Exactly! He’s about a billion dollars removed.

Love his attitude though.

....take it a step further, declare the Wall Street crowd varmits, and pay $20 per hide.

AZGrizFan wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 4:37 pm Yep. Pension funds will magically be saved. WAFJ. That guy is so far removed from reality it’s comical.

No shit - the entire purpose of the Republican Party is to steal money from the public and pension funds are the most efficient way to do that. The trick is to steal the Polices pensions last so they can protect you while you're robbing the little guys.

houndawg wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:18 am

AZGrizFan wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 4:37 pm Yep. Pension funds will magically be saved. WAFJ. That guy is so far removed from reality it’s comical.

No shit - the entire purpose of the Republican Party is to steal money from the public and pension funds are the most efficient way to do that. The trick is to steal the Polices pensions last so they can protect you while you're robbing the little guys.

houndawg wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:18 am

AZGrizFan wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2020 4:37 pm Yep. Pension funds will magically be saved. WAFJ. That guy is so far removed from reality it’s comical.

No shit - the entire purpose of the Republican Party is to steal money from the public and pension funds are the most efficient way to do that. The trick is to steal the Polices pensions last so they can protect you while you're robbing the little guys.

You are delusional.

But he is 100% correct ...

Good luck privatizing OASI

AZGrizFan wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 7:59 pm

houndawg wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:18 am


No shit - the entire purpose of the Republican Party is to steal money from the public and pension funds are the most efficient way to do that. The trick is to steal the Polices pensions last so they can protect you while you're robbing the little guys.

You are delusional.

Interesting stuff here. There is obviously a sweet spot between allowable deaths vs. economic recovery. There are many differences between each pandemic including available and technologically advanced medicine plus the speed in which curative and preventative drugs can be produced. Still this is the kind of stuff that should help inform political decisions.

Comparing cities by the speed and aggressiveness of NPIs, we find that early and forceful NPIs did not worsen the economic downturn. On the contrary, cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively experienced a relative increase in manufacturing employment, manufacturing output, and bank assets in 1919, after the end of the pandemic.

Our regression estimates suggest that the effects were economically sizable. Reacting ten days earlier to the arrival of the pandemic in a given city increased manufacturing employment by around 5 percent in the post-pandemic period. Likewise, implementing NPIs for an additional fifty days increased manufacturing employment by 6.5 percent after the pandemic.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/ ... s-1918-flu

kalm wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 5:51 am Interesting stuff here. There is obviously a sweet spot between allowable deaths vs. economic recovery. There are many differences between each pandemic including available and technologically advanced medicine plus the speed in which curative and preventative drugs can be produced. Still this is the kind of stuff that should help inform political decisions.

Comparing cities by the speed and aggressiveness of NPIs, we find that early and forceful NPIs did not worsen the economic downturn. On the contrary, cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively experienced a relative increase in manufacturing employment, manufacturing output, and bank assets in 1919, after the end of the pandemic.

Our regression estimates suggest that the effects were economically sizable. Reacting ten days earlier to the arrival of the pandemic in a given city increased manufacturing employment by around 5 percent in the post-pandemic period. Likewise, implementing NPIs for an additional fifty days increased manufacturing employment by 6.5 percent after the pandemic.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/ ... s-1918-flu

kalm wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 5:51 am Interesting stuff here. There is obviously a sweet spot between allowable deaths vs. economic recovery. There are many differences between each pandemic including available and technologically advanced medicine plus the speed in which curative and preventative drugs can be produced. Still this is the kind of stuff that should help inform political decisions.

Comparing cities by the speed and aggressiveness of NPIs, we find that early and forceful NPIs did not worsen the economic downturn. On the contrary, cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively experienced a relative increase in manufacturing employment, manufacturing output, and bank assets in 1919, after the end of the pandemic.

Our regression estimates suggest that the effects were economically sizable. Reacting ten days earlier to the arrival of the pandemic in a given city increased manufacturing employment by around 5 percent in the post-pandemic period. Likewise, implementing NPIs for an additional fifty days increased manufacturing employment by 6.5 percent after the pandemic.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/ ... s-1918-flu

Keep the data coming, folks. Learn as much as we can, as fast as we can.

Ivytalk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:59 am

kalm wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 5:51 am Interesting stuff here. There is obviously a sweet spot between allowable deaths vs. economic recovery. There are many differences between each pandemic including available and technologically advanced medicine plus the speed in which curative and preventative drugs can be produced. Still this is the kind of stuff that should help inform political decisions.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/ ... s-1918-flu

Keep the data coming, folks. Learn as much as we can, as fast as we can.

Good article.

It would appear that while the NPIs then and now, today's appear more restrictive (businesses closed rather than reduced hours).

I also wonder if relationships that were present in 1918-1920 but not today helped to reduce the economic impact. I would guess that a tenant was more likely to have a personal relationship with their landlord in 1918 who might be more likely to voluntarily give them a break and that the landlord was more likely to have a personal relationship with their banker who might be more likely to give them a break on their loan. No facts so don't ask for links, just spitballing.

Chizzang wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:51 am

kalm wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 5:51 am Interesting stuff here. There is obviously a sweet spot between allowable deaths vs. economic recovery. There are many differences between each pandemic including available and technologically advanced medicine plus the speed in which curative and preventative drugs can be produced. Still this is the kind of stuff that should help inform political decisions.



https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/ ... s-1918-flu

Yes, yes....because the United States economy in 2020 is built EXACTLY like it was in 1918.

AZGrizFan wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 8:32 am

Chizzang wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:51 am

Yes, yes....because the United States economy in 2020 is built EXACTLY like it was in 1918.

And that was acknowledged both in the study and in my post.

Like Ivy said...

More information and study by experts (both economists and epidemiologists) are what gets us back to a solid economy sooner.

kalm wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 8:43 am

AZGrizFan wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 8:32 am

Yes, yes....because the United States economy in 2020 is built EXACTLY like it was in 1918.

And that was acknowledged both in the study and in my post.

Like Ivy said...

More information and study by experts (both economists and epidemiologists) are what gets us back to a solid economy sooner.

Comparing ANYTHING related to the Spanishi Flu to this is like comparing cars to cumquats. It's a worse analogy than any I've EVER made.

We're not built like we were 100 years ago....physical, economically, health, sanitation, living conditions, etc., etc., etc. That epidemic might as well have occurred on Mars, as much relevance as it has here.

AZGrizFan wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 10:26 am

kalm wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 8:43 am

And that was acknowledged both in the study and in my post.

Like Ivy said...

More information and study by experts (both economists and epidemiologists) are what gets us back to a solid economy sooner.

Comparing ANYTHING related to the Spanishi Flu to this is like comparing cars to cumquats. It's a worse analogy than any I've EVER made.

We're not built like we were 100 years ago....physical, economically, health, sanitation, living conditions, etc., etc., etc. That epidemic might as well have occurred on Mars, as much relevance as it has here.

No, it just upsets your quest for confirmation bias.

kalm wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 10:31 am

AZGrizFan wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 10:26 am

Comparing ANYTHING related to the Spanishi Flu to this is like comparing cars to cumquats. It's a worse analogy than any I've EVER made.

We're not built like we were 100 years ago....physical, economically, health, sanitation, living conditions, etc., etc., etc. That epidemic might as well have occurred on Mars, as much relevance as it has here.

No, it just upsets your quest for confirmation bias.

While it feeds your own confirmation bias? Hello pot, have you met the kettle yet?

Can't the article just be interesting data..?

Chizzang wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 11:13 am Can't the article just be interesting data..?

It absolutely can. But it's not.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 10:57 am

kalm wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 10:31 am

No, it just upsets your quest for confirmation bias.

While it feeds your own confirmation bias? Hello pot, have you met the kettle yet?

Yeah...except I keep qualifying my links and posts, acknowledging fair counter points, and stating how I hope I’m wrong.

AZ KNOWS he’s right. See the difference?

Chizzang wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 11:13 am Can't the article just be interesting data..?

Evidently I didn’t look enough into the politics of the economists presenting the study.

Chizzang wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 11:13 am Can't the article just be interesting data..?

Sure. If it was even remotely relevant. You wanna do a study on mice and elephants next?

kalm wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 11:27 am

GannonFan wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 10:57 am

While it feeds your own confirmation bias? Hello pot, have you met the kettle yet?

Yeah...except I keep qualifying my links and posts, acknowledging fair counter points, and stating how I hope I’m wrong.

AZ KNOWS he’s right. See the difference?

"Hope" isn't a strategy, Einstein. And if I was wrong (which I'm not), I'd gladly admit it.

How many studies will it take you to admit the shutdown was a shitty idea? 8? 10? 20? 50? 8-10% of this country has or has had the virus....that is becoming painstakingly clear at this point. We had essentially almost achieved herd immunity and then BAM! Shut 'er down....now we get to start that process almost over again.

.00098% of Washingtonians have died. Over 1,000,000 are now unemployed. Yep, sounds reasonable to me....

kalm wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 10:31 am

AZGrizFan wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 10:26 am

Comparing ANYTHING related to the Spanishi Flu to this is like comparing cars to cumquats. It's a worse analogy than any I've EVER made.

We're not built like we were 100 years ago....physical, economically, health, sanitation, living conditions, etc., etc., etc. That epidemic might as well have occurred on Mars, as much relevance as it has here.

No, it just upsets your quest for confirmation bias.

What upsets me is that people put out drivel like that and lemmings like you are drawn to it like flies to a light....and then YOU spread that misinformation to more people, who spread it to more people, etc., etc....it's how we got where we are today with the horrendous political/economic decisions made off of bad data spread by seemingly innocent or stupid people.

AZGrizFan wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 12:37 pm

kalm wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 10:31 am

No, it just upsets your quest for confirmation bias.

What upsets me is that people put out drivel like that and lemmings like you are drawn to it like flies to a light....and then YOU spread that misinformation to more people, who spread it to more people, etc., etc....it's how we got where we are today with the horrendous political/economic decisions made off of bad data spread by seemingly innocent or stupid people.

The social media and Twitter mob is a real thing.

I think the PPP program and how people talk about it is one of those things. As programs go, I think by and by it worked pretty well. Average loans were $190,000, and they made something like 1.6M loans in less than two weeks. From those numbers, it sounds like the program did what it was meant to do. Of course, there were some headline grabbing (i.e. Twitter mobbing) mistakes, or at least close to mistakes, that happened - Ruth Chris, Shake Shack, etc). But when you pass out $350B in two weeks for small business loans, and you give out 1.6M of the, I'm sure you can find some that weren't exactly what the program was for (that's what the oversight is supposed to be doing). But when you hear people talk about the program now (and that's the media as well as the social media crowd) all you hear is that the program didn't work, small businesses didn't get anything, and it was a bad program (so bad, though, that they basically are running the program all over again, with almost the same amount of money, with no real structural changes in place). The biggest problem is that the first bill wasn't big enough for the need, but that's not how it's reported. Details.